Building Sustainable
Coalitions in the Dutch Energy Transition
“A narrative of exploring opportunities for decentral climate change mitigation”
Ronald Bakker – S1890050
Master Thesis Environmental & Infrastructure Planning University of Groningen – Faculty of Spatial Sciences
Supervisor: Prof. Dr. L.G. Horlings Final version, 16-09-2019
2
3 Abstract
The Energy Transition that we are currently facing gives us the opportunity to evaluate our current energy systems. This is relevant for the Netherlands since there is an ongoing debate whether we should (entirely) move away from gas and change to renewables or ‘green’ energy sources. Moving to these green alternatives does not only mean technical changes to existing (Grid) networks, but also implies behavioral change for its users and consumers.
Regarding behavioral change, self-governance is gaining momentum in contemporary society. This leads to local initiatives that lead up to taking action in the spirit of going ‘green’. To facilitate these initiatives, more research into the scope of potential arrangements for climate mitigation is needed.
The preliminary focus of this research is gaining insight in opportunities and determining factors along this process of mitigation, specifically in ‘participation coalitions’ that have to be established in the light of NPRES. Therefore the central question is: What are opportunities for collaboration and forming coalitions that benefit the Energy Transition? This holds implications for actors and stakeholders on different scales. This research aims to provide insights in how potential coalitions contribute to the Energy Transition, how values between different actors are affected and what opportunities and bottlenecks for collaboration are.
Interviews and literature research provided qualitative data. Different potential coalition partners in the north of the Netherlands, each with their own context specific peculiarities were interviewed showing the first skirmishes around organizing RES. This research shows that opportunities for coalitions are region and actor dependent. Moreover, they are interrelated which makes it crucial that these results are read within context: they appear in a mix in this continuous process. To maximize opportunities, it is concluded that aside from participation, awareness and societal support, in order to create a ‘solid business case’, the biggest contributors and -at the same time limiting factors- are concerned with local benefits, co-ownership, a functioning grid structure, and clear legal frameworks.
Key words: transition, governance, participation, initiatives, energy cooperatives, coalitions
4 Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude to all the people that supported me throughout this research. First of all, I would like to thank my supervisor Ina Horlings for the adequate supervision. Through useful concepts and literature provided by her, I was able to grasp the topics and issues that I was initially – and still- fascinated by. Secondly, without the willingness and cooperation of the participants I would not have been able to conduct this research.
Ronald Bakker
16th of September, Oldemarkt
5 Table of Contents
Abstract 3
Acknowledgements 4
Table of Contents 5
Overview of figures and tables 7
List of abbreviations 8
1. Introduction 9
1.1 Background and relevance 9
1.2 Research goal 9
1.3 Research questions 10
1.4 Outline 10
2. Theoretical Framework 11
2.1 Background: What are we aiming for?
11
2.1.1 Background: Klimaatakkoord and Regional Energy Strategy 11
2.1.2 Background: Energy Transition Context 12
2.2 Theory: Where are we coming from?
13
2.2.1 From Central Government towards Decentralized Participation 13 2.2.2 From Local Initiatives towards Energy Cooperatives 14
2.3 How do we move on from here?
16
2.3.1 Coalitions 16
3. Methodology 21
3.1 Research approach 21
3.1.1 Semi structured interviews 21
3.2 Analyzing the data 22
3.3.1 C.L.E.A.R. Framework 22
3.3 Ethical considerations 23
3.4 Case selection & Criteria 23
3.4.1 Participant 1: The municipality of Steenwijkerland 25 3.4.2 Participant 2: Energy cooperative: ECOLdemarkt 25
3.4.3 Participant 3: Energy supplier EnergieVanOns 25
3.4.4 Participant 4: Energy cooperative: Wieden-Weerribben 26 3.4.5 Participant 5: Municipality of Noordoostpolder 26 3.4.6 Participant 6: Municipality of Sudwestfryslân 26 3.4.7 Participant 7: National Programme Regional Energy Strategy 26
4. Results 27
4.1 Ambitions: Collective ambitions &Mobilizing others 27 4.1.1 Reality Check: Expectation management, Leadership & Actual impact 28 4.2 Actors: Power Distribution, Partner Relationships & Participation 29 4.2.1 Generational differences; involvement of the younger generation 31 4.3 Arenas: Formal and Political Context, Partners & Platforms 31
4.3.1 Shared Agendas 32
4.4 Actions: Predefined Process, Evaluation & Courses 32
6
4.4.1 Learning, Monitoring long term & Future problems 34
4.5 Arrangements: Shared Ownership, Autonomy & Collectivity 35
5. Discussion & Reflection 37
5.1 Discussion 37
5.1.1 Ambition 37
5.1.2 Actors 38
5.1.3 Arenas 39
5.1.4 Actions 39
5.1.5 Arrangements 40
5.2 Reflection 41
5.2.1 Reflection on Outcomes – Interpretation of Researcher 41
5.2.2 Reflection on Research Process 42
6. Conclusion 43
6.1 Recommendations 45
7. References 46
Appendix A: Interview Guide 50
Appendix B: Informed Consent 52
Appendix C: Codebook 53
7 Overview of figures and tables
Figure 1: Outline of the research 10
Figure 2: Archetypal coalition 16
Figure 3: Creation of public value within different domains 18
Figure 4: Conceptual model 20
Figure 5: Visualization of research strategy 21
Figure 6: GIS of selected municipalities 25
Table 1: Coalition types 17
Table 2: Key factors and their implications for different types of coalitions 19
Table 3: CLEAR framework 23
Table 4: The participants 24
Table 5:Positioning future coalitions in the spectrum of existing coalitions 41
8 List of abbreviations
CLEAR Refers to C.L.E.A.R. framework by Bakker et al. (2012)
NPRES Nationaal Programma Regionale Energie Strategie (Dutch) – National Programme Energy Strategy
RES Regionale Energy Strategie (Dutch) – Regional Energy Strategy
PBL Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving (Dutch) – Planning department for the living environment
SDE+ Stimulering Duurzame Energie (Dutch) – Stimulation Renewable Energy CBS Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (Dutch) - Central Bureau for Statistics G1000 Civic initiative to enhance dialogues in democracy
MKB Midden- en kleinbedrijf (Dutch) – Small and medium enterprises
9 1. Introduction
1.1 Background and relevance
Like many states, the Dutch government finds itself in a position of having to rethink its energy policies.
An important realization is that existing systems (technological, social and economic) need to be reformed to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and to make room for energy alternatives. Important drivers here have been the rising concern over security of supply, coupled with the geopolitical and commercial risks of fossil fuels (Hendriks, 2008). A rethinking of energy strategies has also been triggered by concerns over global climate change, something that may have devastating consequences for a low-lying country such as The Netherlands (Hendriks, 2008).
When discussing sustainability, or when it comes to the climate or climate goals, authorities tend to express great ambitions, even when they do not intend to take a prominent role in the innovation process (Grotenberg et al, 2016). When ambitions do not match their actual ability or willingness to act, a deadlock can occur. On the other hand, when authorities are trying to activate the private sector with their enthusiasm and support and arrange a series of interactions, they can unintentionally accomplish the opposite: a wait-and-see private sector that expects the government to take the lead (Grotenberg et al, 2016). To deal with this potential confusion, there should be clarity about actors’
aspirations, their capacities and expectations of other public and private, actors involved.
In contemporary society, self-organization of civilians within the public domain or local level with regards to energy, health and livability are in the spotlights these days (van Meerkerk & Igalla, 2015).
This is a time with a strong appeal for the self- organizing capabilities of civilians in tackling societal issues and needs, like the notion of the ‘participatiesamenleving’ in The Netherlands or the ‘Big Society’
in the UK (Van Meerkerk & Igalla, 2015). These notions are aimed at collaboration between civilians from the local community. These civilians react to shortcomings in civil services related to the market or the government. Furthermore, Elzenga & Schwenke (2015) argue that it is desirable to develop clear criteria for ‘public procurement’ within the energy sector.
A good example is the emergence of so called ‘energy- cooperatives’, where civilians decide to deliver
‘sustainable’ energy themselves for the local community (Van Meerkerk & Igalla, 2015). At the same time, energy cooperatives are becoming an important factor in the energy transition. Municipalities and energy cooperatives know on what fronts they can team up and when to take distance if cooperatives can function (financially) independently (Hoppe et al., 2016). Furthermore, systems associated with the supply and distribution of energy, rarely attract the attention of network scholars, despite their rising significance in contemporary politics (Hendriks, 2008). However, there are effects with regards to organizing energy collectively on a local scale. As a starting point, this research starts from the hypothesis that there is value in dealing with climate issues; there is possible (future) value in the ability to organize and cooperate on the local level, creating opportunities within the Dutch Energy Transition Context.
1.2 Research goal
Measham et al. (2011) argue that the local level must be leading the climate adaptation and mitigation debate. Therefore, additional research on local level sustainable development is useful. Furthermore, it is desirable to get an in detail understanding of these processes and their possible positive and different effects, in different contexts, for climate change mitigation. Wilson (2006), emphasizes that spatial planning at the local level has a critical role in promoting projects and sustainable development in order to achieve robust adaptation to climate change. On the local or regional level, this could lead to difficulties because of the short-term horizon and interests of citizens, in contrast to the long-term processes and consequences of climate change (Wilson, 2006). To counter this, ideally, established institutions and individual aspirations should reinforce each other in vital coalitions (De Jong, 2016). In this context, vitality refers to energy and productivity to create capacity to act in order to change
10 regional agendas, realize goals or change the formal or informal ‘rules of the game’ (Horlings, 2010).
Therefore, to facilitate collaboration, vital coalitions between public, private and governing parties could contribute in bridging challenges related to the Dutch Energy Transition. There is a knowledge gap in the influence and role that coalitions can have in sustainable development coping with climate change on different scale levels. Additional research on these developments in relation to differing contexts will contribute to research which has been done on this topic of sustainable development.
The rise of coalitions in multiple governance environments is real and in need for a planners’ response (De Jong, 2016). It is important to note that these earlier mentioned coalitions do not explicitly exist (yet) in the Dutch Energy Transition context. However, attempts in shaping coalitions are inevitable as the Klimaatakkoord and the Regional Energy Strategy (RES) urge regions to organize ’participation coalitions’ (NPRES, 2018), underlining the importance of collaboration on the local scale.
For planners this is relevant since there will be an ongoing shift in power, interests and participation during the Dutch energy transition period. Compared to the traditional governance triangle (with a clear distinction between market, state and society) there are multiple questions that could be reflected upon since there are new mechanisms and phenomena in contemporary society as described in section 1.1. Ideally, when elaborating on these questions, this research will explore whether this process is part of the desired systematic change, when it comes to our view and use of fossil fuels. The objective of this research is to explore how interaction between state, market and society can result in possible coalitions within the local level as a starting point. Therefore, the main goal is exploring opportunities for future coalitions with regards to sustainability and the Dutch Energy Transition.
Moreover, the RES (Regional Energy Strategy) that all municipalities have to provide in the near future, specifically calls for ‘participation coalitions’. This does not only legitimize researching the importance of shaping coalitions, it will put societal support to the test as well (NPRES, 2018). This research will focus on potential actors in advance of these ‘participation coalitions’ to explore future collaborations.
1.3 Research questions
The following question is leading for this research:
What are opportunities for collaboration and forming coalitions that benefit the Energy Transition?
This primary research question will be answered by the following secondary questions:
1. Which actors are relevant in the light of the Energy Transition?
2. Between those actors, to what extent is there collaboration and what are obstacles and possibilities?
3. What are coalitions and what are opportunities and bottlenecks?
1.4 Outline
Figure 1 displays the outline to answer the primary research questions. First, a theoretical framework will be established to set the boundaries and context for the research. Hereafter, the methodology will be discussed. Chapter 4 will present the results of the interviews. Chapter 5 will contain the discussion and reflection followed by the conclusion answering the research questions in chapter 6.
Figure 1: Outline of the research Introduction1. 2. Theoretical
Framework 3.
Methodology 4. Results 5. Discussion
& Reflection
Conclussion 6.
&Recommen dations
7. References
11 2. Theoretical framework
In this chapter, the development of ‘participation coalitions’ will be investigated as (part) of the process of climate change mitigation. Participation coalitions can be defined as different stakeholders developing sustainable energy with opportunities for co-development and co-ownership, which allow revenues to flow back into the regions (NPRES, 2018). Adding to that, during this process, involvement and participation is central (NPRES, 2018). This will be discussed in the background theory in chapter 2.1. Hereafter, in chapter 2.2. the changing role of governance, the market and civil society is reflected upon discussing noticeable shifts in ‘traditional’ top-down and bottom-up movements. In attempting to find a new balance between top-down and bottom up, the chapter concludes with section 2.3 where different types coalitions, their practical implications and how actors are complementary are explored.
At the end of this chapter, the conceptual model is presented that allows structuring and discussing the results in the light of the Dutch Energy Transition in advance of future ‘participation coalitions’.
2.1 Background: What are we aiming for?
In this research, the term transition is used because we deal with a wider societal transformation process regarding renewables: a process known as an energy transition (Verbong & Geels, 2008). The next section will elaborate on how this is currently being shaped.
2.1.1 Background: Klimaatakkoord and Regional Energy Strategy
In the Regioniale Energie Strategie (RES), many national agreements from the Klimaatakkoord are put in to practice. This will take place in a nation-wide program consisting of 30 regions (Rijksoverheid, 2019). In the RES, governmental parties, together with societal partners, gas and electricity suppliers, the market and where possible inhabitants, work on choices with regional support. The RES is explicitly meant as a starting point of an execution phase where collaborating parties realize their projects until 2030 (NPRES, 2018). As stated in the Klimmaatakkoord, the RES entails multiple functions. Firstly, it is a product where the region describes which energy goals have to be met and on which terms. Secondly, RES is an important instrument to organize spatial harmonization with societal participation. Thirdly, RES is a way to organize long-term cooperation between all regional parties. Most regions have been working on RES already. Every region has its own challenges and potential and therefore there is room for interpretation as well (Rijksoverheid, 2019). At the same time, it is of great importance that all regions acknowledge the framework and agreements made in the Klimaatakkoord. In order to allow comparison and summation of regional contributions, it is important that the RES (as a final product) is in compliance with national analyzing, monitoring and calculation systematics as developed by PBL (Dutch Planning department living environment) (Rijksoverheid, 2019).
RES is supposed to make agreements from the Klimaatakkoord concrete. An important part in supporting the regions is the National Program RES (NPRES), which serves as a joint between the Klimaatakkoord and the regions. NPRES facilitates, monitors (in collaboration with PBL), develops knowledge and provides clarity to regions but is not responsible for the content and the creation of the RES: this has to be done by the region (Rijksoverheid, 2019). The Klimaatakkoord states that regions have to provide a RES 1.0 on the first of March 2020. In this collaborative effort, the regional supply of energy is developed towards 2030 regarding e.g. electricity, gas and heat. This proposal has to take in account spatial quality and societal support (NPRES, 2018). Moreover, network operators have to map which modifications have to be made to the existing energy infrastructure to connect the generated energy. This is important since they also have to take into account small scale projects like small solar fields and sunroofs associated with local energy initiatives (Rijksoverheid, 2019).
While the goals of the Klimaatakkoord are long term, the Klimaatakkoord also acknowledges that the ways in which these goals are met are uncertain. This asks for an adaptive and iterative process with a realignment every two years (Rijksoverheid, 2019). This adaptation cycle (plan-do-check-act) ensures that RES is in compliance with legal requirements of network operators (Rijksoverheid, 2019).
12 Participation of stakeholders, businesses and inhabitants is embedded within RES to facilitate an inviting process (NPRES, 2018). It is acknowledged that involving these parties in translating a nation- wide ambition to the regional scale will increase societal support when their interests, considerations and choices are part of the process (NPRES, 2018). Interestingly, it is believed that this can speed up the execution of transition plans and their implementation in the landscape. Moreover, the Klimaatakkoord states that opportunities for co-development and co-ownership are considered when developing energy related projects. This should allow profits for the region and characterizes the so- called ‘participatiecoalitie’ (Rijksoverheid, 2019). The possible format and implications for this coalition and coalitions in general is explored in section 2.3.
2.1.2 Background: Energy Transition Context
The challenge that regions in the Netherlands face are complex and the spatial impact of the climate and energy transition will be substantial (Rijksoverheid, 2019). Especially when translating climate ambitions to the local scale and projects, the spatial consequences and dilemmas become visible. A transition is an innovation process that develops a system over time that transforms in interaction with other systems, finding a new dynamic equilibrium (Geels, 2011). The term energy transition refers to the transformation of the traditional fuel and energy system into a more sustainable system, which is also part of a wider societal process (Verbong & Geels, 2008). Important to note here is that apart from limitations to fully oversee the complexity of an energy transition, ownership and power are also fragmented which limits the capacity of actors to alter them (De Boer & Zuidema, 2015). According to Geels (2011), the coherence of existing systems weaken and other systems realign during a transition process. Adding to that, “the shift from fossil fuel based energy systems to low carbon energy systems is part of a wider sustainability transition process which encompasses several evolving systems on multiple scales ” (De Boer et al., 2018 p.490).
Building on energy systems, The Netherlands relies strongly on its utility networks, such as energy networks. Among the most important utility sectors are electricity, gas and district heating networks.
They are the basic infrastructure grids that provide the fundamental conduits through which modern cities and regions operate (Monstadt, 2007). These energy networks are of key importance in terms of sustainability since energy infrastructures become increasingly critical for a well- functioning production, services and infrastructure (Monstadt, 2007). Adding to that, a shift in energy systems also encompasses physical systems such as ecosystems, transport infrastructure or water by e.g. shifting towards the use e.g. electric vehicles (De Boer et al., 2018). De Boer et al. (2018) provide some examples to illustrate the multiplicity of many new interactions occurring between the energy system and physical and social systems consequential to the transition process: the emergence of energy cooperatives, new investment opportunities for energy companies and new market players. Adding to that, more autonomy is desired in the supply of energy, independent of coal centrals and instable regions like the middle-east and Russia (Elzenga & Schwenke, 2015). With this in mind, campaigns or programs could be started, in which the importance of an energy transition towards more sustainability is stressed (Hoppe et al., 2016). It is important that climate change, of which the energy transition is part of, is being implemented in the local policy agendas (Hoppe et al., 2016). This is in line with the multiple functions RES aims for as discussed in section 2.1.1.
13
2.2 Theory: Where are we coming from?
Moving on from the background established in chapter 2.1; in order to know where society is going, it is helpful to know where it comes from. The next section will elaborate on the shift from traditional (central) governance towards more collaboration and shared governance as societal support and participation gain momentum in contemporary Dutch society with regards to the energy transition.
2.2.1 From Central Government towards Decentralized Participation
In Bussu & Bartels (2014), it is argued that traditional government institutions are no longer adequately equipped to confront the complexities of contemporary society. Moreover, environmental change is characterized by cross-scale linkages that generate uncertainty and nonlinear dynamics (Morrison et al., 2017). Keeping in mind the complex multiscalar character of environmental problems, conventional modes of governance fall short (Lemos & Agrawal, 2006). Where state or market actors play a leading role, they lack the capacity to address those problems. This causes complex interactions and generates the problems of institutional fit we experience in contemporary society (Morrison et al., 2017).
The above-mentioned changes in government styles are part of a broader shift in planning. Where the government used to be directing, it has shifted towards a more collaborative or facilitative style. De Roo (2007) describes this as a shift from a technical rational approach to a communicative approach.
In Hassink et al., (2016) the changing relationship between government and citizens is acknowledged, which they call a shift from government to governance. New modes of governance seek to avoid the pitfalls and limitations of earlier approaches. Modern governments increasingly rely on collaboration to realize their policy goals. In this collaboration, governments host non-governmental actors, public and private to solve today’s ‘wicked’ public problems (Salamon, 2000). This can also be recognized in the field of environmental policymaking. With the diminishing capacity of the state to deal with environmental challenges in mind, other actors and institutional arrangements gain interest (Grotenberg et al, 2016).
According to Bakker et al. (2012), local authorities, including municipalities, have a supporting or facilitating role. Furthermore, Lowndes et al., 2006 showed that democracy has moved towards a more participative interpretation. In participatory governance, the government develops a framework and offers support. These newer polycentric forms governance systems are characterized by a nonhierarchical yet interactive constellation of public and private actors at multiple levels (Morrison et al., 2017). This is in line with the facilitative or supportive role of the governments as described in the definition of Bakker et al. (2012). This can be considered one step further on the participatory ladder than what is known as co-production. In Nesti (2017), it is argued that co-production is about the involvement of groups or individual citizens in public service delivery. Co-production can yield gains in program efficiency, effectiveness and quality of services (Nesti, 2017). However, co-production does still not fully empower citizens, in which they decide themselves, as is the case with citizens’ or energy initiatives. To accommodate this empowerment, Hassink et al. (2016) identifies two key factors in the interaction between citizens and governments. The first factor is concerned with process-related aspects, such as building trust and a sense of commitment. The second factors is about structural aspects such as rules and regulations. According to Newland (2003), facilitative governance encompasses helping people and their institutions to achieve constructive purposes. This contrasts earlier governmental planning paradigms, which focused more on command-and-control ways over governance. Furthermore, polycentric governance allows for specialization and the division of tasks between central, regional, and local levels (Morrison et al., 2017).
There is an increasing degree of consensus amongst scholars in governance research; both top-down steering and a liberal free-market approach are being outperformed by effective management mechanism in generating sustainable societal solutions on their own (Loorbach, 2010). Loorbach (2010) stresses that a new balance must be found between the state, the market and society to allow
14 alternative ideas and agendas, fueling regular policy-making processes. Because the effects of environmental change are location-specific, a more polycentric approach would allow for tailor-made mitigation activities to suit local-regional circumstances (Morrison et al., 2017). This is in the spirit of what the RES is ought to be, as described in section 2.1.1. Morrison et al., 2017 also stress that division of tasks improves the efficiency of mitigation measures by matching the appropriate governance level to the geographic scale of the problem. According to Selman (1996), the ‘the local ‘patch’ is the crucial arena in which progress towards sustainability must be made. In this arena conflicts arise, attitudes change and actions are instigated. In addition to this, some level of vision building at the higher-level needs to guide local experimentation (Morrison et al., 2017). This vision building can be embodied by networks of leaders and entrepreneurs who mobilize their unique abilities and qualities order to pragmatically determine choices (Morrison et al., 2017).
It is safe to say that there is a tendency to advance towards desirable norms such as local participation, representation, equity, legitimacy, accountability, innovation, and efficiency (Morrison et al., 2017).
There is however, still a misbalance in power between initiatives, the government (having the decision- making power and political legitimacy) and the market (beholding resources, technology and knowledge) in Western- European countries (Oteman et al. (2014). This notion implies a new role for the government: they have to steer the interaction between initiatives and the market in an effective way (Oteman et al., 2014). Providing the citizens’ initiatives with a sense of being important and the feeling that their activities contribute to their environment could be part of the facilitative role of the government (Denters et al., 2013). From the perspective of learning and mutual adjustment, local sites need to be connected with each other and their overall experiences need to be assessed at a higher level (Morrison et al., 2017). Furthermore, according to Bakker et al. (2012), the Dutch national and local government consider citizens’ initiatives as a (cheaper) provision of alternatives to governmental development programs. From a governmental perspective, this implies that the success of citizens’
initiatives is beneficial for the government as well.
2.2.2 From Local Initiatives towards Energy Cooperatives
Nearly all municipalities have ambitious climate and energy goals but lack the means and manpower to execute them in practice (Elzenga & Schwenke, 2015). In 2014, the Gemeentelijke Barometer Fysieke leefomgeving stated that municipalities interpret their role as passive facilitating, administrative, regulative and steering (Holmaat & Robben, 2014). This underlines their dependency on other actors to realize their goals. With that in mind, there is a concept that gained importance over the last thirty years: active citizenship. This concept is also concerned with active participation of citizens and shared responsibilities for the spatial environment between the government and civic communities (Boonstra
& Boelens, 2011). The call for active citizenship in Dutch policy documents is often accompanied by a call for citizens’ initiatives (Dam et al., 2015). This increased demand for active citizenship is accompanied by an increasing number of citizens’ initiatives in the Netherlands and has raised questions about the position of citizens towards the government (Dam et al., 2015). Moreover, Boonstra & Boelens state that from a community perspective, active citizenship empowers citizens, increases social coherence and connectivity between social networks and public welfare. In addition, it is also believed that it increases a sense of belonging of participants (Boonstra & Boelens, 2011).
However, in some cases citizens have to be mobilized, as initiatives should in some cases not be initiated by the citizens themselves: this demands an active role of the government (Oude Vrielink &
Van de Wijdeven 2011). By organizing public consultation evenings, municipalities could raise the awareness by involving the citizens in the decision making process (Hoppe et al., 2016).
Lenos et al. (2006) distinguish three types of citizens’ participation. Dating from the 1970s, the first generation of citizens’ participation is mainly about the right of having a say in policies created by municipalities. In the early 1990s, the second generation was concerned with interactive decision- making and co-production. The third generation of citizens’ participation gained influence in the early
15 2000s. This generation is characterized by citizens taking responsibility and according to Lenos et al.
(2006), the government has a facilitative role. This third generation of citizens’ participation has most in common with the concept of citizens’ initiatives. From an institutional perspective, civic initiatives are also referred to as ‘selforganizing’ or ‘self-governing’ initiatives and emerge from the dynamics within civil society itself (Boonstra and Boelens, 2011). An increasing number of citizens are active in shaping their own neighborhood (Hassink et al., 2016). In contemporary society, the state expects citizens to take responsibility in the participative society and citizens should lean less on the welfare state (Verhoeven & Tonkens, 2013). This underlines the increased importance of citizens’ initiatives.
At the same time, there is a reaction to the increasing scale, privatization and liberalization of the energy sector. An urge to act within the energy sector arises; citizens fill in the blanks that are left out by the market and the government (Elzenga & Schwenke, 2015). The government is moving back from a sector that used to be an amenity. This liberated market wherein everyone is free to choose their energy supplier offers possibilities for combining consumer power (Elzenga & Schwenke). Trell et al., (2018) state that renewable energy is not only challenging as it requires incorporation into our landscapes: is also offers opportunities for local or regional socio-economic challenges. The rise of affordable renewable technologies opens possibilities for decentralized energy generation on a relatively small scale (De Boer et al, 2018). This has resulted in a rise of small-scale energy initiatives (e.g. wind turbines or solar panels) instigated by local citizens or entrepreneurs (Arentsen & Bellekom, 2014). These initiatives associated with energy can be framed as focal points in a wider societal transformation process regarding renewable: a process known as an energy transition (Verbong &
Geels, 2008). Furthermore, “renewable energy has the potential to provide this transformative power since it can create new jobs, services new economic development models” (Trell et al., 2018, p. 28).
Still, there are various terms for citizens’ initiatives at the local scale e.g. grass-root, community and bottom up initiatives. These initiatives often offer the possibility to participate financially in a project (Elzenga & Schwenke, 2015). This allows people with different backgrounds and motivations to come together in one initiative like an energy cooperative. This financial participation element is relevant since it is often linked to the acceptance of renewable energy structures (Hoppe et al., 2015).
Furthermore, the members can have their say in the direction they want to go, are co financer and are therefore co-owner of the production installations (Elzenga & Schwenke, 2015). Energy cooperatives also seem to fulfill the desire of citizens to use locally produced energy, which is labelled ‘green’. This desire is likely to be fueled by media, claiming that ‘green’ energy in many cases is ‘grey’ energy made green through certificates of e.g. Norwegian hydropower plants (Elzenga & Schwenke, 2015). This
‘sjoemelstroom’ does not in any way contribute to an increase in the production capacity of sustainable energy (CBS, 2014). Literature mentions multiple motives for the establishment of energy initiatives, ranging from political (dissatisfaction with government), ecological (climate change), social (livability) and economic (financial) motives or a combination of those motives (Hoppe et al., 2015).
While ecological motives are generally prevailing, they often occur in a mix and are closely linked to other categories (Hoppe et al., 2015).
Energy cooperatives are becoming an important factor in the energy transition. According to Elzenga
& Schwenke (2015), energy cooperatives can rely on more support than the municipality because they are well organized, competent, involved and have a good functioning (local) network. Furthermore, local initiatives often permit energy or financial benefits to be distributed locally (Spijkerboer, Trell &
Zuidema, 2016). In addition to that, local energy cooperatives want to enhance sustainability, safe costs, boost the local economy and community (Elzenga & Schwenke, 2015). Trell et al., (2018) add that renewable energy can potentially create economic, institutional or social spin-off to some extent, be it small. Therefore, a range of local activities can co-benefit (De Boer et al, 2018). The fact that parties are willing to cooperate does not necessarily mean that the cooperation is in all cases effortless (Elzenga & Schwenke, 2015). The risk that energy cooperatives are becoming a cheap executing organ of the municipality is realistic (Bakker et al., 2012). Another potential bottleneck in this relation is that
16 municipalities are legally obligated to carefully weigh interests. Furthermore, when civilians take initiatives, this does not automatically result in a withdrawal of the government and business (De Jong, 2016). This implies that not every decision is necessarily beneficial for energy cooperatives (Elzenga &
Schwenke, 2015). If it comes to mobilizing from a market perspective, cooperatives often cooperate with solar project developers and are primarily concerned with initiating and preparing the project.
They look for a fitting roof, negotiate with the roof owner, suppliers of solar panels, energy companies and mobilize neighbors for collective financing (Elzenga & Schwenke, 2015). Citizens can become frustrated with inflexibility of procedures or the slackness of response by civil servants (Bakker et al., 2012). Adding to that, it is important to overcome obstructive barriers i.e. outdated regulations not suiting the steps needed in the energy transition (Elzenga & Kruitwagen, 2012). Concerning the energy transition, it is advisory that municipalities create their visions together with citizens (Elzenga &
Kruitwagen, 2012).
2.3 How do we move on from here?
After having established the background in chapter 2.1, the shift from government to governance and the development of initiatives in 2.2, it is time to explore new interactions between civil society, the government and the market. In exploring this new balance, the starting point is having established institutions and individual aspirations reinforce each other in coalitions (De Jong, 2016).
2.3.1 Coalitions
It is safe to say that public–private collaboration between civic initiatives and market parties is a sensitive process. The search in which actors involved continuously have to exchange wishes and opportunities to reach acceptable solutions for all remains (Grotenberg et al, 2016). Traditionally, organizations relate to social problems from a specific sector and therefore address problems only partially and often independently from those concerned (De Jong, 2016). A way to overcome this difficulty is to build coalitions of various actors being able to adapt to changing circumstances (De Jong, 2016). As a theoretical starting point, this is displayed in figure 2 as an archetypal coalition from a traditional point of view. Sometimes this is achievable by offering space to other parties and responsiveness, sometimes through maintaining a consistent line, strong governance and sometimes by withdrawing and leaving room for others to act (Steen et al., 2014). In line with chapter 2.2, De Jong (2016) acknowledges that in the past years, individuals have become more pro-active and have proved that they can govern and organize themselves, sharing what they have alongside the governmental domain and the market place
Figure 2: Archetypal coalition
17 To embrace the idea that every actor (governmental, civic or business either institutional or in individually) can take initiative, has something to contribute and can fulfil similar roles depending on the situation, the term ‘coalitions’ is used (De Jong, 2016). A coalition consists of diverse autonomous actors who share an ambition in a public arena to develop arrangements and actions (De Jong, 2016).
According to De Jong (2016), a coalition is defined by five key elements: ambitions, actors, arenas, actions and arrangements, which will be elaborated later on. Coalition planning helps to bridge views and navigate in the constantly changing landscape. It is not necessarily about working in new coalitions, but about applying different types of coalitions simultaneously without getting lost (De Jong, 2016).
De Jong (2015) distinguishes three types of coalitions, displayed in table 1.
Coalition type Directive coalitions Collective coalitions Connective coalitions Ambition defines
coalition Coalition shapes ambition Ambition moves coalition One actor has an
outspoken ambition that it wants to realize in reconciliation with others taking a directing role in an established arena of stakeholders (De Jong, 2016)
Actors are partners in a newly created arena of complementary
stakeholders, each with something to give and gain in a jointly shaped ambition (De Jong, 2016)
To feed their own ambition as well, actors can choose a facilitating role for initiators that start a movement in a spontaneous area
proceeding from personal drive (De Jong, 2016) Structure Institutional perspective Mutual perspective Individual perspective
Role Directing Partnering Facilitating
Type of Arena Established arena Created arena Spontaneous arena
Table 1: Coalition types, adopted from De Jong (2015), p289
All three types of coalitions differ substantially. However, framing the coalitions allows introducing a framework and language that is enabling actors to make deliberate and explicit choices in coalitional approaches. Each coalition type has its own roles, rules, repertoires, rationalities and responsibilities (De Jong, 2016). Until now, this research assumed that the role of facilitator could only be fulfilled by either the municipality or the market (section 2.3.1). However, when exploring coalitions, this facilitating role can also (partly) be fulfilled by e.g. initiatives i.e. reaching ambitions. Adding to that, civic actors are considered equal with business or governmental actors; collaboration between these actors can lead to creative solutions for complex problems (De Jong, 2016).This multiplicity of roles and approaches demands a wider view on the repertoire of interventions and competences considering everyone is equal (De Jong, 2016). Therefore, the government could well be a stakeholder in another initiative while fulfilling a directing role on other aspects of the same ambition (De Jong, 2016). This underlines the necessity of a suitable mix. According to Van der Steen et al. (2015), assembling this suitable mix should happen deliberatively s at the start of the coalition process. This should ensure that every actor has a clear of understanding of its role to avoid counterproductive behavior. Quite often, the mix evolves over time and therefore it is important to discuss the changes, as timing is crucial in adaptive approaches (Van der Steen et al., 2015).
When it comes to (a common) language, often different labels for similar trends and concepts are used (Schor, 2014). Terms like ‘open’, ‘adaptive’, ‘co-creation’, ‘public participation, ‘self-organization’ and
‘cooperation’ that are found in e.g. are sometimes old but imbued with new meanings. Most terms relate the participants’ desire to create more sustainable and more socially connected societies (Schor, 2014). From a market point of view, these concepts deal with e.g. the sharing of products and services.
From a civic point of view, most concepts are concerned with a wish for more empowerment and satisfaction. From a governmental point of view, these concepts deal with complexity and legitimacy (De Jong, 2016). This is displayed in figure 3. Where all three circles meet is where public value is created (De Jong, 2016).
18
Figure 3: Creation of public value within different domains and values, based on De Jong (2016)
According to Hoek (2013), next to financial values in the business case, one of goals is sustainable value creation incorporating ecological and social values. However, this motif is contested because ordinary people denounce the sharing economy and prioritize economic self-interest rather than sharing (Schor, 2014). Therefore, it is harder to distinct separate roles and responsibilities: the separations between sectors and domains become more fluid (De Jong, 2016). Civilians are not limited to the role of consumer, predominantly concerned with their personal well-being, companies are not always striving for the biggest profit and the government does not have a monopoly on knowing what is best for the people (De Jong, 2016). However, actors are less capable of reaching their ambitions independently.
They can benefit from bringing different worlds together in coalitions that are effective, not in spite of, but due to the differences. De Jong (2016) claims that together they can come to better solutions for complex problems than they can achieve on their own. Through information exchange and interaction among citizens and public officials, learning and mutual experience may develop new patterns of relationships (Van Meerkerk, 2014).
This adds to the notion that future coalitions originating from NPRES are dynamic entities. Moreover, if the factor time is taking into account, which is rather important in the context of an energy transition, it is inevitable that new parties enter the stage. Rationalities might move or the political context might change and therefore switching towards another type (or combination of all three types) of coalition might be necessary in order to respond to changes (De Jong, 2016). There are a few take away messages that –at least from a framework point of view- make the distinction between different types of coalitions clear. While this is aimed at distinguishing existing coalitions on the basis of five attributes, this can also serve as a spectrum in which future coalitions can be positioned. Table 2 will provide a quick overview and the next section will clarify some nuances.
Government How can we make responsible choices?
Legitimacy & Legality
How can we actually help?
Attention &
Satisfaction Civic How can we make it
profitable?
Efficiency &
Effectiveness Business
19
Ambitions Actors Arenas Actions Arrangements
Directive
coalitions Ambition impacts others outside their organization
Unequal power
distribution Formal and
political context Predefined process with clearly formulated deadlines;
Consensus building
Hierarchical;
No shared ownership
Collective
coalitions Collective ambition around issue
Equal partners;
Mutual gains New arena with committed partners on voluntary basis
Not always an endpoint;
Evaluation throughout process
Everyone is ambition owner;
Giving up autonomy for returns:
Collectivity Connective
coalitions Formulate ambition to mobilize others
Loose relationship;
constantly changing composition
Spontaneous action arena;
Personal an informal relationships
No determined course;
common sense rather than methodology
Motives rather than jobs;
Connectivity rather than collectivity Table 2: Key factors and their implications for different types of coalitions, based on De Jong (2016)
Directive coalitions: The position of a municipality, or energy company is often stronger than the position of stakeholders like citizens (De Jong, 2016). However, governmental authorities do not necessarily fulfill the directing role: they can also be a facilitator or stakeholder, for example, when an energy company plays a directing role in constructing a field of solar panels (De Jong, 2016). However, according to Bakker at al. (2012) facilitators experience trouble in finding a suitable facilitating role according to the needs of different coalitions. For example, there is too much of a focus on the provision of financial resources, bureaucratic procedures and use formal language (Bakker et al., 2012).
Collective coalitions: In this coalition, we do not talk about stakeholders (as in directive coalitions), but about shareholders since all actors can be considered as equal partners (De Jong, 2016). Actors that do not see advantages in being a partner will not participate: they are not forcibly committed to each other as they often are in directive coalitions (De Jong, 2016). It takes time and effort to let the common ambition grow, but eventually it may develop a sustainable complementary collective with a surplus value for each partner (De Jong, 2016). As the name suggests, this type of coalition is effective when the parties are interdependent and lack the power to work on their own. The attractiveness of partner is inhibited in the fact that the other is different with its own specific contribution (De Jong, 2016). In practice however, when benefits are not realized, there is a risk of partners losing interest:
parties pay less attention to the common ambition and focus on the means to achieve it. When governmental authorities are not part of this coalition, they can still fulfill facilitative actions or a partnering role (De Jong, 2016).
Connective coalitions: These coalitions are about the development of actions and ideas (De Jong, 2016). This type of coalition represents local or personal initiatives started by initiators, civic entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurs that mobilize a group of people. Bakker et al. (2012) also stress the importance of civic skills (e.g. basic verbal, social and organizational skills). The members of this type of coalition feel ownership for their own activities from their individual perspective: they do not share a common ambition (De Jong, 2016). In successful connective coalitions, it is important that motivations are intrinsic and contributions are voluntary. When public professionals and officials interfere with the initiative, connective coalitions will lose self-governing character and therefore it is challenging for facilitators to find a good balance between interference on the one hand and lack of empathy on the other hand” (Bakker et al. 2012).
20 After discussing the background theory in chapter 2.1, in chapter 2.2. the changing role of governance, the market and civil society was reflected upon discussing noticeable shifts in ‘traditional’ top-down and bottom-up movements. This is summarized in the conceptual model (figure 4) as ‘classic governance triangle’. In attempting to find a new balance between top-down and bottom up, this chapter concluded with section 2.3 where different types coalitions, their practical implications and how actors are complementary are explored. This relates to the present situation and the goal of this research: explore future collaborations and coalitions in the light of the energy transition (future).
Figure 4: Conceptual model
Vision Building is regarded as an overarching beneficial concept in the Energy Transition. The five key factors from Coalition Planning will provide the narrative for analyzing the results in chapter 4. This allows discussing the results on the basis of the five attributes/ key elements. As displayed in figure 4, coalitions depend and benefit from other concepts alongside the process of mitigation (e.g. learning and mutual adjustment) and make the process iterative. For example: Increased trust and some local benefits result in people willing to participate in initiatives and consequently ambitions can grow collectively in future collaboration (in a potential coalition format) resulting in even more trust and commitment: a self-enforcing cycle in which theoretically snowballs a transition, hence the thick green transitional line.
21 3. Methodology
This chapter will focus on how this research has been designed and which steps have been taken to come to the final conclusion. Therefore, the used methods are discussed, followed by an explanation of the use of semi-structured interviews. Thereafter, the method of analysis and the use of the CLEAR framework is explained. Lastly, the selected participants are presented and there is room for ethical considerations.
3.1 Research approach
Two methods are used to explore possible coalitions in the energy transition, namely literature review and interviews. This means this research is based on qualitative data mainly. The theoretical framework and conceptual model will provide the frame of reference for discussing the results in the light of the Energy Transition. When available, policy documents of the selected municipalities (or reports by energy cooperatives) have been used to support the preparation of the semi-structured interviews. Section 3.3.1 will elaborate further on structuring these interviews. Figure 5 shows the research strategy and how the different methods combine and add up to results.
Figure 5: Visualization of the research strategy
3.1.1 Semi structured interviews
This research makes use of qualitative data collection to investigate a contemporary phenomenon (future coalitions involving state, society and the market). This method is preferred in addition to other methods since it allows highlighting valuable elements, which can be connected to each other via multiple interviews, within context. Secondary data or quantitative methods alone do not provide enough in-depth information to be able to answer the research questions.
22 The goal of the interviews is not to generalize but to understand how individual actors give value to their experiences. This research made use of interviews to understand the social complex dynamics that occur in climate mitigation governance on the local or regional scale. Semi-structured interviews offer the opportunity to gain insight in the motives behind certain methods of actions when it comes to e.g. the facilitation of citizens’ initiatives and the functioning of coalitions. The use of quantitative data gathering was considered, but is not preferred as it does not provide insight in the underlying motives of e.g. municipalities and cooperatives. Longhurst (2010) argues that semi-structured interviews are about talking with people. With that in mind, using semi-structured interviews instead of structured interviews, offers the opportunity to ask questions additional to those listed beforehand.
This added flexibility is especially valuable when responding to unexpected turns in the interview (Flowerdew & Martin, 2005). Moreover, it offers the opportunity for participants to elaborate on matters they consider important to mention (Longhurst, 2010). Furthermore, being able to talk in person with the participants offers a situation in which the participant might feel more comfortable (Khan, 2014). With this in mind, it is also helpful to interview the participant in a neutral place. In this case, this implies that e.g. aldermen and representatives are being interviewed in their respective offices. Most importantly – when the selected participants are critically questioned- the interviews have to take place in a place in where they feel familiar and where they are able to speak freely (Longhurst, 2010).
3.2 Analyzing the data
This research enhances understanding the role of potential actors in coalition building and leads to a detailed understanding of the relation between the capacities they employ and the success of initiatives. The interviews thus can contribute to further theory development on this topic. In order to allow analyzing the interviews, audio recordings were made. The quality and cohesion of the results depend on the intent of the interview guide (Appendix A).The interviews have been transcribed and coded with help of Atlas.ti. Most data has been coded deductively: the codes originate from the relevant literature and policy documents. The construction of a code system facilitates identifying categories and patterns (Cope, 2010). This is helpful since it helps connect themes and categories, contributing to more nuanced conclusions (Cope, 2010). In addition, inductive coding is used to supplement deductive coding if responses cannot be assigned to deductive codes. This offers flexibility and contributes to a precise process of analysis. Both the deductive and inductive set codes are shown in Appendix C.
3.3.1 C.L.E.A.R. Framework
To create a framework and to formulate interview questions, one concept in particular was used to shape the majority of qualitative part of this research: The C.L.E.A.R. model by Bakker et al, (2012). The C.L.E.A.R. framework “offers public authorities an investigative method for understanding where the strengths and weaknesses of their existing participation infrastructure are, and help to identify policy responses that might be pursued.” (Lowndes et al., 2006, p.285/286). Hypothetically, this means that structuring the interviews based on this allows investigating participation and collaboration of actors in potential coalitions, based on their current experiences of collaboration.
Verba et al. (1995) developed an influential Civic Voluntarism Model to answer the question: why do some citizens participate while others do not? Lowndes et al. (2006) extended this model and formulated their CLEAR model adding two factors. The CLEAR acronym refers to CAN DO, LIKE TO, ASKED and the added TO ENABLED TO and RESPONDED factors. The CLEAR model provides a basis for systematic thinking about potential interventions by facilitators. Where article of Bakker et al. (2012) is limited to the mobilization stage of citizens’ initiatives, it still provides insights for facilitators with regards to citizens’ initiatives. Based on the CLEAR framework, Bakker et al. (2012) elaborate on which methods and instruments of facilitation can lead to successful citizens’ initiatives.
23 In the context of Bakker et al., the facilitator refers to the government or municipality. In this research, the facilitating role can also be fulfilled by the market, as they are implicitly incorporated in the cooperative legal form concerned with energy cooperatives. This allows determining how governments or other facilitators can contribute to strengthen the citizens’ attributes and thus facilitate the citizens’ initiatives. The five key factors (displayed in table 2) are concerned with the attributes that citizens need in order to be able to participate effectively in citizens’ initiatives from a municipality perspective. Questions were formulated within this line of thought (see appendix A).
Key factor How it works Policy targets
Can do The individual resources that people have to mobilize and organize (speaking, writing and technical skills, and the confidence to use them) make a difference
Capacity building, training and support of volunteers,
mentoring, leadership development
Like To To commit to participation requires an identification with the public entity that is the focus of engagement
Civil renewal, citizenship, community development, neighborhood governance, social capital
Enabled to The civic infrastructure of groups and umbrella organizations makes a difference because it creates or blocks an opportunity structure for Participation
Investing in civic infrastructure and community networks, improving channels of communication via compacts Asked to Mobilizing people into participation by asking
for their input can make a big difference Public participation schemes that are diverse and reflexive Responded to When asked people say they will participate if
they are listened to (not necessarily agreed with) and able to see a response
A public policy system that shows a capacity to respond – through specific outcomes, ongoing learning and feedback
Table 3: CLEAR framework, adopted from Lowndes et al. (2006), p286
3.3 Ethical considerations
Prior to the interview, the participants will be informed about the length and purpose of the research and that their input is part of this research. When interviews are conducted, personal interaction can be influenced by norms and values, expectations and power structures (Dunn, 2010). In this case, the researcher can be considered an outsider, with interest in e.g. sustainability, energy initiatives and governance. Other than gathering the required information for this research, there are no other interests. All the participants had to sign a declaration of informed consent (see Appendix B). This document describes that their answers will only be used for this research, that it would be recorded and that they could stop the interview at any time if necessary. After completing this research, the data will be kept behind a password on a PC for one year and remain only accessible for the researcher.
In addition, participants are guaranteed anonymity if requested. In that case, an alias will be used and their names will not be used in the research. Such confidentiality will help the participants to feel more freely in answering the questions (Hay, 2010). However, the researcher is aware that some quotes might in fact remain retraceable and identifiable with certain participants because they relate strongly to their position and function.
3.4 Participant selection & Criteria
The unit of analyses, or the case, is determined by defining spatial boundary, theoretical scope, and timeframe (Yin, 2003). The theoretical scope is defined based on a literature study. In this case, the units of analysis are potential coalition actors related to energy cooperatives, energy initiatives, (local- regional) governance and market parties. The relationships between actors and the attitudes of actors and stakeholders are prone to change and influenced over time. However, in this research the Energy
24 Transition is considered a long-term commitment. This study focusses on key actors. Key actors are municipalities, civilians, energy contractors, politicians, national government, land/roof owners, delegations of cooperatives who together (potentially) form and act in coalitions and are willing to cooperate. To make these interactions tangible and better understand energy transitions, a local perspective is used since it reveals these interactions within the context of people’s daily environments (De Boer et al., 2018).
Key actors selected in this research are participants with a prominent role or function; they are credible, responsible, representative and could be held accountable for their actions. Availability and willingness (or a lack of) to cooperate was dealt with during the research period. Selected participants are regarded potential actors in advance of the participation coalitions as described in the NPRES and the theoretical framework. The researcher is aware that these coalitions do not follow a prescriptive format and are therefore interpreted differently by different actors, which gives the research an explorative character. The interaction between energy cooperatives and the government is also tangible on the municipal level which qualifies these actors as potential actors and participants.
Furthermore, Elzenga & Schwenke (2015) state that in their research there was regular contact between energy cooperatives, civil servants and directors. This can be explained by the common interests they share regarding energy use, enhancing social cohesion and the local economy. By investing in these partnerships, governments can stimulate the cooperation between municipalities and market parties (Elzenga & Kruitwagen, 2012). For example, Multiple municipalities even offer roof surface of their own property for free for solar projects (Elzenga & Schwenke, 2015). With these collaborations in mind, this resulted in the selection of the following participants, displayed in table 4.
Table 4 gives an overview of the participants interviewed, their role and some general characteristics.
Participant Role Location Date Duration Method
Oord Alderman Steenwijkerland Steenwijk 29-5 57:38 In Person Simonse Alderman Noordoostpolder Emmeloord 24-6 39:11 In Person Schiphorst Chairman ECOldemarkt Oldemarkt 8-7 52:21 In Person Hoeksema CEO EnergieVanOns Groningen 9-7 1:04:09 In Person Huisman Chairman DeWieden-Weerribben Dwarsgracht 11-7 1:01:18 In Person
Faber Alderman Sudwestfryslân Sneek 15-7 45:00 In person
Kessels National Programme RES Den Haag 18-7 58:08 In Person
Total 6:17:45
Table 4: The participants
The research runs from 11-2018 until 07-2019. Data collection occurred from 03-2019 until 07-2019.
The results are based on the data collected during that period. The data collection period defines the specific time boundaries of the case. Candidates were cooperatives located in the northern part of the Netherlands (Friesland, Groningen, Flevoland and Drenthe) that are currently organizing themselves or have organized themselves and are part of a collaboration or coalition with e.g. the municipality regarding sustainable energy provision. To facilitate different results, multiple municipalities have been selected to fulfill the governmental part within the potential coalition, as displayed in figure 6.
Besides the geographical spread, this is also desirable since this research is also about the facilitation and collaboration around energy initiatives involved in local sustainable energy development.
Therefore, the selected initiatives are located within the relevant municipal boundaries.
25
Figure 6: GIS of selected municipalities
The next section will provide a short analysis of every participant, how they function, and how they relate to other actors keeping in mind their potential as a coalition partner.
3.4.1 Participant 1: The municipality of Steenwijkerland
The municipality of Steenwijkerland holds a few good examples of local initiatives concerned with sustainability and energy (Steenwijkerland, 2019). The province of Overijssel and Steenwijkerland facilitated energy initiatives with subsidies (DeWieden-Weerribben, 2019). In terms of collaboration:
ECOldemarkt is building, together with the municipality of Steenwijkerland, a large solar field on one of the few uncultivated areas on an industrial terrain located in Oldemarkt.
3.4.2 Participant 2: Energy cooperative: ECOLdemarkt
On the 8th of February 2018, Energy Cooperative Oldemarkt was founded (ECOldemarkt, 2019). This is in initiative from residents that live in Oldemarkt for residents of Oldemarkt and surroundings.
ECOldemarkt wants to decrease the use of fossil energy and increase self-sufficiency within the region by exploiting solar panels under their own management (ECOldemarkt, 2019). ECOldemarkt received a starting subsidy from the municipality (Steenwijkerland) which covered the start-up costs.
ECOldemarkt state on their website that there are consultations every two weeks to discuss collective actions: this collaboration is valued as ‘very prosperous’. The realization of this ‘sun on land’ project has not reached the execution phase yet. The goal of the cooperative is to generate energy collectively and more economically (ECOldemarkt, 2019).
3.4.3 Participant 3: Energy supplier EnergieVanOns
Likewise, EnergieVanOns is on a mission: they aim for 100% locally generated green energy.
EnergieVanOns connects almost one hundred energy cooperatives with thousands of customers (EnergieVanOns, 2019). Furthermore, EnergieVanOns works on expanding their ‘energy movement’
and facilitate administration, customer support and central communication (EnergieVanOns, 2019).
